Spirit first?.......or substance first?

[leibowde84]

there are no experiments to place the primal singularity in a petri dish
no equations apply as the numbers run off the chalkboard

you can't figure this out by means of science
but science would insist......cause and effect
and science would also insist.....cause first.....then effect

observation will take you to that starting 'point'

then you make a choice
Spirit first?
or substance

With string theory, the beginning of our universe was caused by two branes, or substances, colliding.

 

[Thief]

With string theory, the beginning of our universe was caused by two branes, or substances, colliding.

and that would be.....substance
acting of it's own 'self'?

 

[leibowde84]

and that would be.....substance
acting of it's own 'self'?

I'm not sure what you mean by "self", but it would be substance that was responsible for initiating our universe.

 

[Thief]

I'm not sure what you mean by "self", but it would be substance that was responsible for initiating our universe.

it would be substance that is the tangible portion of our universe

you would argue that a rock can beget life?

 

[Quintessence]

this takes no time at all.
a simple choice
Spirit first or substance?
it's one or the other
they are not the same existence

In your opinion, perhaps. But honestly? I'm not even convinced that's your opinion. You still haven't explained to us how you define the terms "spirit" and "substance," meaning the reader really has no idea how you approach them. How is a reader supposed to believe these two are not the same when you don't describe what the two things are in the first place? There's no substance to what you are saying (pun intended).

and if the term graven image confuses you
then your confusion will stymie your answer

No, I'm pretty sure your failure (or refusal) to clarify your terms is going to do that more than well enough. Besides, I already answered the question with respect to how *I* understand the terms.

 

[Thief]

In your opinion, perhaps. But honestly? I'm not even convinced that's your opinion. You still haven't explained to us how you define the terms "spirit" and "substance," meaning the reader really has no idea how you approach them. How is a reader supposed to believe these two are not the same when you don't describe what the two things are in the first place? There's no substance to what you are saying (pun intended).



No, I'm pretty sure your failure (or refusal) to clarify your terms is going to do that more than well enough. Besides, I already answered the question with respect to how *I* understand the terms.

no fail on my part.....

your inability to separate the two terms is not on me to correct

and until you do.....you cannot make the choice presented

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

and therefore you would say.....substance first?

No I would not say that. As I have said repeatedly, your dualism is meaningless to my understanding of reality.

You refuse to state your own understandings of the terms substance, spirit, and even what first might mean, and say respondents should use their own understandings...

Okay, done that, and here's the choice that you won't put into your little survey: (Aside from the fact that I believe that we humans cannot know this for certain), I believe that neither substance nor spirit preceded the other; either both existed "before" the apparent beginning of our little corner of the cosmos, or both came into being simultaneously with the apparent beginning.

How did I reach this conclusion, so different from yours? I have studied the knowledge that scientists have generated about the world, as well as works of philosophy and religion, as well as my own experiences...and then I thought about it, carefully, using my capacity for logic and reasoning...

 

[Thief]

No I would not say that. As I have said repeatedly, your dualism is meaningless to my understanding of reality.

You refuse to state your own understandings of the terms substance, spirit, and even what first might mean, and say respondents should use their own understandings...

Okay, done that, and here's the choice that you won't put into your little survey: (Aside from the fact that I believe that we humans cannot know this for certain), I believe that neither substance nor spirit preceded the other; either both existed "before" the apparent beginning of our little corner of the cosmos, or both came into being simultaneously with the apparent beginning.

How did I reach this conclusion, so different from yours? I have studied the knowledge that scientists have generated about the world, as well as works of philosophy and religion, as well as my own experiences...and then I thought about it, carefully, using my capacity for logic and reasoning...

perhaps this thread not for you?

as I understand science (and did recently see as much in print)....
effect cannot occur without cause

cause MUST precede effect

if you can rewrite science .....then proceed

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

perhaps this thread not for you?

as I understand science (and did recently see as much in print)....
effect cannot occur without cause

cause MUST precede effect

if you can rewrite science .....then proceed

There is nothing that says that cause for the universe MUST BE a spirit. You, my friend, are making that leap all by yourself...well, not really, lots of people do the same...

At this point, scientists (an others) are making lots of speculation about how the universe came to be as we see it now...but none of the evidence is absolutely conclusive; that is, alternative explanations cannot be ruled out completely.

As for whether this thread is for me...of course it is: you're the one who posted it in the General Religious Debates section, and posted a dualistic answer for your little survey when, as I and several others have repeatedly pointed out, there are other possibilities outside of your dualistic conception of the ways the question could be answered.

If you aren't happy with the fact that there are more understandings of the universe than are dreamt of in your philosophy, you should either not post such flawed questions, or pick a forum where all the readers agree with your dualism.

 

[Thief]

There is nothing that says that cause for the universe MUST BE a spirit. You, my friend, are making that leap all by yourself...well, not really, lots of people do the same...

At this point, scientists (an others) are making lots of speculation about how the universe came to be as we see it now...but none of the evidence is absolutely conclusive; that is, alternative explanations cannot be ruled out completely.

As for whether this thread is for me...of course it is: you're the one who posted it in the General Religious Debates section, and posted a dualistic answer for your little survey when, as I and several others have repeatedly pointed out, there are other possibilities outside of your dualistic conception of the ways the question could be answered.

If you aren't happy with the fact that there are more understandings of the universe than are dreamt of in your philosophy, you should either not post such flawed questions, or pick a forum where all the readers agree with your dualism.

Many believe God is Spirit
God is Creator
The formation of the universe is His handiwork

makes sense to me

 

[leibowde84]

it would be substance that is the tangible portion of our universe

you would argue that a rock can beget life?

Where did you get the idea that a rock can beget life? That's a strawman argument. I never made that claim.

 

[Quintessence]

no fail on my part.....

Yes, actually, it is. If someone presents some information and then fails to clarify key terms for the reader, that is a failure of communication that will result in a failure of understanding. It is doubly a fail on your part since you have been asked to clarify your terms and for whatever reason not done so. It is unfair for you to expect a reader to follow your line of thinking when you do not bother to elaborate on where you are coming from. Really, this should not be hard for you:

How do you define "spirit?"

How do you define "substance?" ​

I really do not know what those words mean for you. Neither does anyone else reading this thread. I can't understand your perspective if you aren't going to bother actually explaining it. And if you aren't going to bother actually explaining it, what exactly is the point of this thread?

your inability to separate the two terms is not on me to correct

My supposed "inability" to view the terms in the same way you do is absolutely not your business to "correct" given it is not in need of correcting in the first place. But that's not what I've been asking. I have been asking you to clarify how you understand these terms so I can better understand your approach to things. Really, this should not be hard for you:

How do you define "spirit?"

How do you define "substance?" ​

and until you do.....you cannot make the choice presented

I'm not interested in making a choice that is nonsensical with respect to my worldview. What I am interested in understanding is how you view things and how you came to the conclusions you did. Which kinda starts with helping me understand what on earth you mean when you say "spirit" and "substance." You say they are different. Well, how are they different? What are they?

 

[viole]

spirit turns up after the substance?

as in standing from the dust after the last breath?
(a digression of the topic)

When I read your posts, I might be indeed inclined to admit that spirits, or whatever, are overriding substance

Ciao

- viole

 

[Thief]

Yes, actually, it is. If someone presents some information and then fails to clarify key terms for the reader, that is a failure of communication that will result in a failure of understanding. It is doubly a fail on your part since you have been asked to clarify your terms and for whatever reason not done so. It is unfair for you to expect a reader to follow your line of thinking when you do not bother to elaborate on where you are coming from. Really, this should not be hard for you:

How do you define "spirit?"

How do you define "substance?" ​

I really do not know what those words mean for you. Neither does anyone else reading this thread. I can't understand your perspective if you aren't going to bother actually explaining it. And if you aren't going to bother actually explaining it, what exactly is the point of this thread?



My supposed "inability" to view the terms in the same way you do is absolutely not your business to "correct" given it is not in need of correcting in the first place. But that's not what I've been asking. I have been asking you to clarify how you understand these terms so I can better understand your approach to things. Really, this should not be hard for you:

How do you define "spirit?"

How do you define "substance?" ​

I'm not interested in making a choice that is nonsensical with respect to my worldview. What I am interested in understanding is how you view things and how you came to the conclusions you did. Which kinda starts with helping me understand what on earth you mean when you say "spirit" and "substance." You say they are different. Well, how are they different? What are they?

I am not required to present information

no need for me to drag you to a response

it should not be hard for you to answer the proposed question

 

[Thief]

Where did you get the idea that a rock can beget life? That's a strawman argument. I never made that claim.

the response is a required yes.....if you believe
substance first

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Many believe God is Spirit
God is Creator
The formation of the universe is His handiwork

makes sense to me

"Makes sense" to you, but:

-Many don't believe there is a god of any sort, spirit or otherwise.

-Many don't believe that any gods, singular or plural, created of the Universe.

-There is no imperative for believing either in spirits or in God;

-Or that HeSheItThem created the universe.

-Some even believe that Substance and Spirit are the same thing...

For these, and many many other categories of people, your choices are meaningless.

My question to you is WHY EVEN BOTHER TO POST A SURVEY WHEN YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT THE RESPONSE?

I see that the results so far are evenly divided at 5 apiece... but at least that many more have pointed out that they cannot sensibly respond.

If one does not believe that there is a god or any other spirits, substance does not precede nor follow spirit, because there is no spirit.

Those who believe some variation of "it's all spirit" or "spirit and substance coexist, neither came before or after," (regardless if their idea is that they preceded the beginning of the universe, or started at the same time), your choices are, again, meaningless.

So why are you playing this game? Why post it in General Religious Debates when you clearly wanted the response of dualistic monotheists and not anyone else?

 

[leibowde84]

the response is a required yes.....if you believe
substance first

That is ridiculous. Not believing in God doesn't require that a Rock can beget life.

 

[Willamena]

it would be substance that is the tangible portion of our universe

you would argue that a rock can beget life?

You would argue that something tangible cannot beget life?

Some might call that misogamist.

 

[Thief]

You would argue that something tangible cannot beget life?

Some might call that misogamist.

not quite.....

substance is dead

let's not confuse that with life

if substance first........at any level.....
then something dead came to life .....of it's own will
it's own volition
it's own.......self

 

[Thief]

That is ridiculous. Not believing in God doesn't require that a Rock can beget life.

at some 'point'......life took on an existence in substance

life first
Spirit first